The comparison, also, has the effect of demonstrating that God has the same right over His own creature, which the potter has over that, which he makes. In the first place, the conclusion is like this — “If the potter hath power, of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour, it is not for thee, the thing formed, to say to Him that formed thee, ‘Why hast thou made me thus?’ — But the potter hath that power; — Therefore, &c.” In the second place: “If the potter hath that power over the clay, then also God hath the same over men, or rather over that from which He was about to form or make men; — But the former is true; — Therefore, the latter, also, is true.” Therefore, also, “it is not for man to reply against God, ‘Why hast thou made me thus?’” or to make this objection, on account of which the apostle reproves and rebukes the objector. Thus much in reference to the arrangement and the sum of the objurgatory answer, in which, also, it is shown how that can tend to the refutation of the objection itself, if, indeed, an addition, suitable to the comparison, had been made. We must now treat, in a right and legitimate manner, of the application of the things compared. This will consist, wholly, in an explanation of the right and power of God over the man, either already created or to be created. First, in reference to the comparison used in the reason, “shall the thing formed say to Him, that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?” The explanation of this will be, according to the comparison, — “so it is not lawful for a man to answer God, as you do in that objection.” In any case, it is necessary that the objection of the man should have congruity with this of “the thing formed.” But the former was this: “if thou hardened a man by thy irresistible will, there is no reason that thou shouldst find fault with him:” This objection, harmonized with that of “the thing formed” will be like this, “Why hast thou made me, to be hardened by thy irresistible will?” What Beza says, here, of the mutability of human condition, seems to me to have little adaptation to the purpose.

If, likewise, we should consider the argument from the power of the potter, it will be apparent that some such application of that comparison was to be made. For what resemblance has the power of making to honour or to dishonour to the power of making something changeable. But it has much resemblance to the power of making a person, to be hardened or to receive mercy. Let us now see what is the explanation of the comparison which is used in that argument. “Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another to dishonour?” The explanation, strictly set forth, will be thus, “thus God hath power from the same lump to make some men to honour, others to dishonour; or some to wrath, others to mercy,” in a manner adapted to the subject of discussion, as appears from the following verses: from which the conclusion is deduced. “If God hath power, from the same mass of the human race, to make one vessel to wrath, and another to mercy, then man can not, justly, reply against Him, Why hast thou by thy irresistible will, made me to be hardened, that is, a vessel to wrath?” He adds, however, in reference to the vessels to honour and mercy, though the question was only in reference to the hardened, since the subject of discussion is the power of God which has reference to both. You will observe that I have presented these things, most rigidly, according to the sense of my opponents, because I wish to concede to them whatever can, in any way, be accommodated to the scope of the apostle.

We must now see how those things are to be understood which we attribute to God in those applications; namely, that “He hath power, from the mass of the human race, to make one vessel to honour and another to dishonour, one man to obtain mercy, and another to be hardened by His irresistible will.” The word “power” used here signifies not ability but right and authority. It is ejxousia not dunamiv The subject, therefore, in this passage, is not that absolute power by which He is able to do any thing, but the right by which it is lawful that He should do any thing. In the word “lump,” Beza understands the reference to be to “the human race, as not yet created, and not yet corrupt.” We know that Augustine was of a different opinion, and that he considered the “lump” as referring to the fallen human race; if any one wishes to deny the latter view, the argument, which Beza presents, will not be sufficient, namely, that “the apostle must, then, have said that God left some vessels in dishonour, and transferred others from that state to honour.” But I am willing to concede this to him, that unformed matter is signified by the word “lump.” For it does not seem to me to be sufficiently safe, to say that God hath not power from one lump to make one vessel to wrath, and another vessel to mercy, — to make one man to be hardened by his irresistible will, and another to obtain mercy. When we see daily that God makes vessels of mercy and vessels of wrath, and that He hardens some men, and has mercy on others, it is indeed apparent that He hath the right to do that which He really does. But I add that He hath the right to do this, in the same mode, in which He does it, and to determine to do it for the same reasons, in view of which He really does it. The subject, indeed, would be plain in itself, if it had not been involved in difficulties, by a preposterous mode of explanation. This I will not here disprove, lest I may be too prolix: for I have not designed to do this now, but only to show that this chapter, by which, as by a firm foundation, they say that their theory is supported, is not in their favour.

I will, however, endeavour to throw some light on this subject. When God is said to make vessels of wrath or vessels of mercy, to harden a man or to have mercy on him, then necessarily three things are to be considered, two explicitly, one implicitly, being interposed between the other two as a medium or means. First it is necessary that a man should exist, and be a vessel. Secondly, it is necessary that before he can be a vessel of wrath or of mercy, he should be a vessel of sin, that is, a sinner. Thirdly, that he should be a vessel of wrath or of mercy.

Let us now consider what is the work of God in this matter. First, then, it is the work of God by which He makes man, that he may exist, not only that he may exist, but that he may exist to a certain end, which is signified in the term “vessel,” which is equivalent to “instrument.” But an instrument is made to some end. The Scripture declares that this end is the glory of God. Therefore, God made man for His own glory, that is, not that He should receive glory from man, but that He might illustrate His own glory in a much more distinguished manner, by man than by His other creatures. But the glory of God is illustrated, by a manifestation of His own natural attributes, especially of those which are considered as being of secondary importance, such as goodness, justice, wisdom and power. There are others which belong more intimately to His essence, as simplicity, infinity, eternity, immutability, &c.

It is now to be considered what the attributes are, in the manifestation of which the glory of God was, first of all, to be displayed. I affirm, that they were His goodness, justice, wisdom and power. It belonged to goodness that He should communicate Himself; to justice, to prescribe the rule of that communication; to wisdom, to know how it might suitably and possibly be done; to power, that He should be able, in fact to communicate Himself. Goodness, therefore, impelled God, to make not only other things, but man also, that is, to so communicate Himself to Nothing, by His own image, that out of Nothing and that communication there should exist that being, which is man. Justice prescribed the mode, in which it was suitable that this communication should be made: for it is the arbitrator of goodness, or as Tertullian says, the arbitrator of the works of God. Wisdom knew how it might be proper that God should communicate Himself to that which was to be made man, and how God could do this. Power, the instrument of the others, was at hand to perform. God could communicate His own image to Nothing. But man was made, only, that he might be a vessel of that goodness, justice, wisdom and power, and thus He was a vessel to illustrate the divine glory. It must, however, be also considered in what manner he should be a vessel to illustrate the glory of God.

This is indeed true. — God did not make man, that he might only be that which he was made, but that he might tend to greater perfection. Nor did God think that His own goodness was satisfied, when He had once communicated Himself to man, as his creator, but his own glorified, but He wished to communicate Himself further to man, as also “the glorifier of man;” and that this might be possible He endowed him, not only with natural, but also with supernatural gifts. But justice prescribed the rule and measure of this communication, namely, that it ought to be made only on the condition that man should live, in accordance with the divine image, in obedience to the commands of God, and, since he could be exalted, he could also be cast down, — and nothing was more just than that he should be cast down, if he should abuse the gifts, by the right use of which he could be exalted to the highest dignity. Man was, therefore, in that respect, a vessel to illustrate the just goodness and wrath of God, by which God might declare His own great goodness in blessing him, if he should live righteously, and His severe wrath in punishing him, if he should transgress the command. Thus God made man originally, and in him the rest of mankind, vessels to illustrate His just goodness and wrath, that is, instruments fit for this. But He did not, in fact, do this, without the intervention of that, which is here considered in the second place. — Man, originally placed in this condition, by the Deity, by transgressing the command, made himself an evil vessel, that is, a sinner: with the concurrence of no co-operation of the Deity to this result, except such as was suitable to His goodness, justice, wisdom, and indeed to His constancy, by which nothing was taken away from the freedom of man or the actual mode of freewill would be restrained or would be impelled in this or that direction.

Let this conditional proposition be converted into a simple or categorical statement, “God can not justly find fault with those who are hardened by His own omnipotent will.” Such is the objection. Let us now consider what force it has; that from the examination, it may be evident how it can be refuted, and the way for its suitable refutation, may be prepared. These two things, then, are to be considered. First, “God can not justly find fault with the hardened.” Second, “Because He has hardened them by His omnipotent will, which can not be resisted.” The examination of the former consists in the discussion of this question. “Who are they with whom God can justly find fault?” The examination of the second consists in the discussion of this: “Whether and in what manner, they, who are hardened by the omnipotent will of God, may be exempted from the number of those with whom God can justly find fault?” The former question will be solved, if it may be explained, what that is, on account of which God can justly find fault, that is, what is the proper cause of the divine anger. The proper cause of the divine anger, and that, on account of which God can justly find fault with any one, is sin. But sin is the transgression of a law, that is, of one which is just, for, if a law be not just, it is not a law, and therefore, its transgression is not a sin. That a law may be just, it necessarily requires these two conditions, that it be enacted by him who has authority to command, and that it be enacted for him who has the power or rather ability to obey, not only dunamei but ejnergeia| that is, has ability of such a character as is hindered by no intervening decree, from doing that which he can do. Whence it is apparent that “sin is a voluntary transgression of the law,” which the sinner, since he could avoid it (I speak now of the act), commits, of his own fault. On account of sin of this kind, and with a sinner of this kind, God can justly find fault. This condition being removed, God can not justly find fault with a man on account of sin, and, indeed, the man can not commit sin. I say this, for the sake of those, who think, though erroneously, that God can justly be angry with transgressors of the law, even if they can not, on account of an intervening decree, really obey it. An act, which is inevitable on account of the determination of any decree, does not deserve the name of sin. I doubt not that this is most certain; it shall be proved, when it is necessary. From this, therefore, it is clear who they are “with whom God can justly find fault.” Now let us consider whether and how they, who are hardened by the omnipotent will of God, may be exempted from that number; that is, whether the omnipotent will of God, hardening a person, may remove the cause of just accusation, complaint and wrath. But let us premise what that means, “For who hath resisted his will?” Here omnipotence is attributed to the will of God, universally able to subject all things to itself, and actually subjecting them, when the will accompanies it, and it accompanies the will. But omnipotence does not accompany the will, considered in every respect, for God wills that His law should be obeyed by all, which is not always done. Nor yet are there, in God, two wills mutually contrary, one of which wills that His law should be obeyed by all, the other, that it should not be obeyed; for in that case, it would not be wonderful that the law should not be obeyed by many, when the latter will, armed by omnipotence, prevents obedience to it. But some, when they endeavour to explain how it may be possible that those wills should not be contrary, say that the will of God is to be considered, in a two-fold relation, as secret and revealed. The revealed will has reference to those things which are pleasing or displeasing to God, the secret to those things which he simply and absolutely wills should be done, or not done; and that it is entirely consistent that, in His revealed will, He should will that one and the same action should be done, and, in His secret will, that it should not be done, since He wills, in a different mode, in the two cases. But there may be dispute whether a secret will can be supposed in God, by which He might will, absolutely, that a thing should be done or not done, which, by His revealed will, He might will should be done or not done. Others say that this will of God is that of good-pleasure, or that of sign, which amounts to the same thing. But is not the will of God, in relation to His good-pleasure, signified in the word? It is also said that the divine will is, in one respect, efficacious, in another, not efficacious. But this is the same thing as to say — one is resisted, the other can not be resisted. It is wonderful in what labyrinths they involve themselves, being blinded either by unskillfulness or prejudice, or by both. To those who rightly consider the subject, the will of God will appear to be one and the same thing in itself — distinct in its objects.

What then? “Is not the will a faculty, free according to reason, or at least the appearance of reason, extended to the act of doing or having?” So, also, in God. We may be permitted, in our obscure phraseology, to delineate those things, which exist in that clearest light. He wills to do, and He wills to have. The former wills something from Himself, the latter wills something from us; by the former He wills that something should be done by Himself, and invokes omnipotence, which always accompanies it. By the latter, He wills that something should be done by us agreeably to justice, the pattern of which He presents us, in His own law. But it is necessary that He should reveal unto us, and indeed command that, which He wills from us, that he may obtain from us that which He wills. He does not, however, always disclose to us that which He wills to be done by Himself, or that which He wills to do, but only sometimes as He judges may tend to His own glory, and to our salvation.

You ask whether the subject of discussion is any secret will of God, and you, indeed, add your opinion that such is not the subject. You, already know my sentiments in reference to the secret will of God. I think, with you, that the subject of discussion, here, is not that secret will, in whatever way it may be taken. Let them say what that secret will is. Is it that God can not be resisted, so that He should not harden those whom He wills to harden? The truth of this is manifest, from the declaration itself. Is it secret who they are whom God wills to harden? By no means. Nothing is more plain in the Scripture, than that sinners, persevering in their sins against the long-suffering of God, who invites them to repentance, are those whom God wills to harden. It is, however, not evident, but hidden, who those sinners are. This is true; but what relation has it to the will, that it should, therefore, be called hidden. The knowledge of God in this place, will rather be called hidden from us. Of many such sinners, God wills to harden this one and not that one, and it is hidden from us which He wills to harden rather than others. I do not, now, discuss that point; but I affirm that this is not discussed in this passage. Therefore, since it will not be discussed in this place what that object of the will is, which is considered hidden by us, neither is the secret will of God in any way treated of in this place. But to return; that omnipotent will removes the cause of just anger, if, by it, a man may be moved to the commission of sin, and by that power which ye can not resist, and so the hardened will be, by that will, excluded from the number of those with whom God can be justly angry, if they did that, on account of which they are hardened, being moved by that omnipotent will, which no one can resist. I do not speak, here, concerning compulsion. For “God can not compel, nor can the will be compelled,” but it is sufficient to excuse the man, and to exempt him from the just wrath of God, if there exist any force of divine impulse, which is followed by the inevitable necessity of doing that to which he is moved. If, indeed, the man commits that which deserves hardening of free-will, he is subjected to blame, and is worthy of wrath, even if he may be hardened by that will, which can not be resisted. For resisting and that freely, the divine will, revealed in the word, which can be resisted, he is brought into that necessity of the divine decree, also revealed in the word, which can not be resisted, and so the will of God is done in reference to him, by whom the will of God is not done. From these things, I think that a solution to that question can easily be formed.

But let us examine the answer of the apostle, and with that diligence, which the gravity and difficulty of the subject deserves, yet according to our measure. At the outset, however, it is not to be supposed that the apostle sought evasions, when he could not refute the objection itself, nor did he involve the subject in difficulties, that he might coerce and restrain the objector, terrified by the difficulty of the subject, but he most aptly and effectually refuted the whole objection. I would dare to affirm that no objection in the whole Scripture is more sufficiently refuted.

Let this objection be placed before the eyes, with all its fundamental principles contracted into a small space, that it may be inspected, as it were, in a single moment, in the following form — “Can God be justly angry with those, who are hardened by his irresistible will?” We may be permitted to use that form of expression for the sake of compendious significance. The answer of the apostle is two-fold. In one part, reproving the objector on account of his own unworthiness, and that of the objection; in the other, refuting the objection. That which has the nature of reproof has three parts, the reproof, its reason, and the proof of its reason. The reproof is proposed in the form of an interrogation in these words: “Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?” That is, Consider, O man, who thou art and who God is, and thou wilt understand that thou art unworthy to answer God in that manner. To slander so excellent a doctrine in a manner such as to charge unjust wrath upon God, and to wholly exculpate man, was resistance of God to His very face, and the most direct opposition to Him. Hence it is not wonderful that the apostle, excited by the indignity of the thing, should have determined sternly to reprehend the man, who should make an objection.

The reason consists in a comparison of man and God, in the like unworthy answer, adapted to that comparison. For as there are three things contained in that proposition, The man replying, God to whom the reply is made, and the reply itself. The reason of that proposition refers to those three things, in these words, “Shall the thing formed say to Him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Here man is compared to “the thing formed,” God to “Him that formed it,” and the reply to this, “why hast thou made me thus?” In this comparison the apostle gives the reason why it is not suitable for man, as “the thing formed,” to reply thus to God, as “to Him that formed it,” as if he should say, “as it is not permitted to the thing formed to say to Him that formed it, ‘Why hast thou made me thus?’ so also, it is not permitted to thee, O man, to reply to God in this way. For thou art nothing else than clay and a worm of the earth, a thing made by God, but God is He who made and formed thee.”

The ESV, however, like all Bible translations is not perfect.  It does have its faults.  I have very few problems with the ESV as say I have with the NIV or the NLT.  I prefer an essentially literal translation and I believe that most serious students of the Word of God would agree that there is something comforting about simply being able to read a text from the Bible and know that the translation is seeking to be faithful to the translation of the Hebrew and Greek texts and not seeing to add its own perspective to the text.  Again, no translation is perfect.  All are translated by people who, I hope, seek to translate the text accurately into the English language (or whatever language they are seeking to translate it into).  One need not know Greek to know that the Jehovah’s Witnesses are seriously bias and flawed in their translation, the New World Translation.  The ESV is a faithful translation as far as I can tell.

But what would I change about the ESV if Crossway was listening to me?  Here are a few of my own thoughts.

1.  Italicized Words.

I would do as the NKJV or the NASB do and words that are added for clarity would be put in italics.  Even the original KJV did this.  It helps the Bible reader to know that this word is not in the Hebrew or Greek text.  To me it’s just another area of showing the reader that you desire to be faithful when translating the Word of God.  Not one dynamic equivalent translation uses italics properly because of the number of words added to the text for clarity.  The ESV is a faithful, essentially literal translation and should reflect this with words in italics.

2.  Translate the Greek word Dulos as “Slave” and not “Servant.”

In his book, Slave, by Dr. John MacArthur, MacArthur shows how important the usage of the word “slave” was in the New Testament.  It was the favorite term by Paul the Apostle for himself (see Romans 1:1; Galatians 1:10).  It was also used by Jesus to refer to His followers in Luke 17:7-10.  The word was a common word in the Roman times and it carried with it the idea of being purchased by another for work to them.  We have been purchased by God through His Son (1 Corinthians 6:20).  Our duty is to serve God loyally as His slaves.  The Holman Christian Standard Version (HCSB) translates the Greek word as “slave” in its New Testament.  I would love to see the ESV follow suit and do the same.  That is the best translation of the word.

3.  The Word of Christ in Black.

This is a personal preference to end with.  I prefer a Bible that has all the words in black and avoids putting the words of Christ in red.  I know some Bible readers enjoy the words of Christ in red but to me, its confusing.  First of all, the words of Christ are not over the words of say Moses or Paul or Peter.  They are all inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16).  By placing the words of Christ in red it seems as if the words of Christ are over the other words of all others.  The words of Jesus are important but so are the words of the New Testament letters or the words of Luke in Acts.  Secondly, when I was a boy it seemed all I would ever get at church for Christmas from my Sunday School teachers were KJV award Bibles.  I must have had ten of them!  They all had the words of Christ in red.  I would open that Bible and somehow the words of Christ seemed to me to be mystical or unique because of the red writing.  They scared me.  They, of course, were not my main problem but my sin was but that is another question altogether.  My point is that even as a boy, the words of Christ in red threw me off.  It seemed they were above all others and they are not.

Conclusion

Just my own thoughts.  You are free to disagree.  The best translation is a used translation.

Let us, however, examine the answer of the apostle. He first denies the inference. Then he gives the reason for his denial. He denies the inference, when He says, “God forbid,” that is, we ought by no means to admit the thought that there is injustice in God, who is just in Himself, and, indeed, is essential justice, and does nothing, and can do nothing, unless it most perfectly agrees with His nature.

The reason of this denial of the inference is two-fold; first, from the liberty of the divine mercy; secondly, from the due illustration of the divine power and glory. That, which is inferred from the liberty of the divine mercy, is comprehended in these words, “For He saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion” (15th verse). In these words is expressed, according to the Hebrew idiom, this idea: “In the choice and liberty of my will is placed the power of having mercy on whom I will:” as is also indicated by the deduction, “Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy” (verse 18th). But in what way this answer is effectual to the overthrow of that inference, the word Mercy declares, which word embraces in itself the whole weight of the refutation. For the only sufficient reason for charging injustice on God on account of that purpose was this: that God could not, without injustice, make of none effect “His purpose of creation, by which He made justification and life dependent on obedience to the law, but condemnation and death in the transgression of the same law; especially so far as to exclude, from justification and life, those, who should endeavour, by the law, to attain to justification and life, but to make others, who should not indeed do this, but should believe in Christ, partakers of justification and life.” This charge of injustice can be removed from the Deity, only by the word mercy, here used, which, as it presupposes misery and sin, by this very fact indicates that a change of the purpose is not made with any blame on God, but because the condition of that purpose had been violated by a transgression of the law, and, thus, an inability to keep the law had been brought upon man. Hence we see that, by the fault of man, the covenant, entered into at the creation, was made void, and therefore God, free from its obligation, could have either punished man according to his demerit, or instituted another purpose in His own mind. That this might be for the good of man, it was necessary that mercy should intervene, which should remit sin, and arrange a condition, which He might, by the aid of mercy itself, be able to perform. The apostle affirms that God formed within Himself a purpose of this character, and this indeed of His mere mercy, which was free (yet under the guidance of justice) to determine on whom He might will to have mercy, and on whom He might will not to have mercy; whom He might will to make partakers of justification and life, and whom to exclude from the same blessing. Whence it follows that God, on account of a decree of this kind, and a purpose according to election, by which He determined to receive the children of the promise into the covenant, and exclude from it the children of the flesh, and which He purposed should stand “not of works, but of Him that calleth,” can not be charged with injustice; because, moved by mercy alone, He made this decree in His own mind. God would, therefore, be unjust, if He should deprive any one of justification and life, or should require a condition contrary to the covenant entered into at the creation: but when, on account of the violation of the condition, and of inability to perform it, it was either for mercy to make a covenant of grace with man, or for severity to punish man without hope of pardon; it is apparent that God was not less free, that indeed He was much more free, to arrange whatever conditions might seem good to Him, in that covenant, than in the covenant of creation. Consequently He could not be charged with injustice in one case more than in the other.

This whole matter may be treated syllogistically: — If the purpose of God according to election to reject the children of the flesh, but to consider as seed, the children of the promise has for its cause the mercy and compassion of God alone; then it follows that God can, by no means, on this account be charged with injustice; — But the cause of that purpose is the mercy of God alone; — Therefore God can not, on account of it, be charged with injustice. That this is the meaning of the answer of the apostle is evident from the subjoined inferential answer — “So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God, that showeth mercy,” (verse 16) supply here “the purpose according to election,” which is effectual so far as he had before said — “that the purpose of God, according to election, might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth,” and “the children of the promise are counted for seed,” the children of the flesh being excluded. For, when the will and the course of men are opposed to the mercy of God, it is certain that the reference is to the effort and the course of a man, by which he hopes that he will obtain justification and salvation apart from the mercy of God. Such, however, is the effort and the course of those, who seek justification and salvation by the works of the law. When, also, mercy is, on the other hand, placed in opposition to the will and course of men, it is evident that the condition of justification and life, which is most nearly related to mercy, namely, faith in Christ, the Mediator, is ordained, the other being opposed to mercy.

The other reason of the denial of the inference consists in the just illustration of the divine power and glory, in those, on whom He wills not to have mercy: which, also, is set forth, in the particular example of Pharaoh. It is comprehended in these words: “For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared in all the earth” (verse 17.) From which passage, the apostle answers that part of the objection, in which God was charged with injustice because He rejected and regarded with hatred the children of the flesh, of His purpose according to election, in an argument, susceptible of the following form: — If God is free, for the just declaration of His own power and the illustration of His own name, to raise up, harden and punish Pharaoh, then injustice can not be attributed to God, because, in His purpose according to election, He decrees to illustrate His own power and glory in the just hardening and punishment of the children of the flesh; — But God was free to do the former, as is apparent from this passage; — Therefore also He is free to do the latter, and hence He can not, on this account, be accused of injustice. The argument of the Major is valid. For, either God will be free, in no case, to illustrate the power and glory of His name in the just punishment of any person, or He will be, also, free to decree to do this, according to any purpose, in the condemnation of those, by whose just condemnation He may will to declare His own power and the glory of His name.

It is, also, true that to take away the right and power from God of making a decree, which is according to election, is nothing else than to be unwilling that He should exhibit His own power, and the glory of His own name, in the just hardening and punishment of some men. For these things are conjoined, to punish any man and to decree that the same man is obnoxious to punishment. Punishment can be, with justice, inflicted on no one, unless the same thing was destined for him by a just purpose or decree. How God was free to raise up and harden Pharaoh, &c., will be shown hereafter, in the refutation of a subsequent objection. That this is the whole meaning of the answer of the apostle appears from the conclusion, subjoined to the whole answer — “Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth” (verse 18).

For, by that conclusion, the whole objection of the Jews is most fully refuted in this way: — If God can have mercy on whom He will, and harden whom He will, then He is also free to form a purpose according to election, by which He may determine to have mercy on the children of the promise, but to harden and punish the children of the flesh; — But God can have mercy on whom He will, and harden whom He will; — Therefore He is free to make a decree, according to election, by which He may determine to have mercy on the children of the promise, but to harden and punish the children of the flesh. By consequence, also, if He should do this which He is free to do, He can not be, at all deservedly, accused of injustice. Thus the justice of God, in that purpose according to election, is sustained and proved by the apostle by the strongest testimonies from the Mosaic Scriptures.

Yet today many preachers of the Word which would include both Arminians and Calvinists dislike expository preaching.  I know few true expositors of the Word of God.  The more prominent expositors are all Calvinists.  Of course, we Arminians do have expositor preachers out there but they are not in the forefront like Calvinists such as John MacArthur or John Piper.  Dr. Vic Reasoner, the editor for the Fundamental Wesleyan Society, is a strong proponent of expository preaching.  Many Calvary Chapel brothers including Chuck Smith and Skip Heitzig are both expositors and both lean Arminian.

My cry is that God would restore expository preaching.  Even among house churches, we need verse by verse teaching from anointed slaves of God.  God has no doubt given us Bible teachers (Ephesians 4:11-16) and these teachers should be teaching verse by verse through the Word of God.  Expository preaching, unlike other methods of preaching, focuses the teacher and the hearer upon the Word of God.  Expository preaching helps the hearers learn how to interpret the Bible and teaches them how to hear from God for themselves (John 8:47).  Expository preaching glorifies God because it focuses the teacher to focus on the Lord as they work through the Word of God since Jesus is the focus of Scripture (John 20:31; Colossians 1:15-20).  Expository preaching keeps the focus on God, His kingdom, His salvation, His glory, His Word, and His promises instead of giving us cute stories from the teacher or personal and subjective experiences from the teacher.  The teacher often is the focus when expository preaching is discarded.

So why don’t we like expository preaching in the Church today?  The answers vary but let me give my own thoughts.

1.  Our Flesh (Romans 3:10-18).

Expository preaching is a flesh killer.  The Word of God cuts deep (Hebrews 4:12) and expository preaching takes the scalpel of the Word of God and it cuts us open before all (Hebrews 4:13).  The Word of God sanctifies (John 17:17) and sanctification sometimes hurts our pride as God exposes our sins.  The Word of God reveals our true feelings and true heart before God.  The Word of God shows us that we are desperate, wicked sinners before a holy God (Jeremiah 17:9-10).  We simply don’t like that.  We want to hear that its “our best life now.”  We want to hear “positive and encouraging” messages and “talks” instead of being cut by the Word of God.  The last thing we want is to show up to our assemblies and hear a word from God that causes us to repent.  We don’t like that.

2.  Our Lack of Discipline (2 Timothy 2:15).

Topical preaching is easy.  Just pick a subject and get a few Bible verses to back it up and fill it in with your own stories and illustrations and boom, you’ve got a topical sermon.  Not so with expository preaching.  Expository preaching makes you wrestle with the text.  Expository preaching forces you to actually labor over the text and, at times, even weep over the text.  Expository preaching makes the Bible teacher work through the verses.  All of them.  Not just the ones that you like.  Expository preaching means you must deal even with difficult passages.  Why?  Because it is the Word of God!  From Genesis to Revelation, the duty of the teacher is to proclaim all of God’s Word and not just what we feel is right or what we deem necessary for today.  All of Scripture is given to us for our salvation and our instruction (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

3.  Our Loss of God’s Glory In All Things (Philippians 1:20-21).

We live for ourselves.  We don’t live for God.  We don’t live with a focus on eternity (2 Corinthians 4:16-18).  We don’t live as if this were our last day on the earth (James 4:13-17).  We live focused on our needs, our comforts, our desires, our passions, our goals.  Sadly, the topical driven sermon often feeds that view.  Topical preaching appeals to the flesh because it means that the preaching is appealing to our flesh.  I know that not all topical sermons are this way but a great many sermons I hear today are not at all focused on the Word of God but instead on the teacher or the hearer.  The focus should be on the glory of God!  Our aim should be to exalt Jesus in all that we say or do (Colossians 3:16-17).  Jesus should be our passion and our focus.  He is also our reward (Hebrews 11:6).  Jesus is the one that we are seeking to please our in our Bible teaching and not people or anyone else.  When Jesus is our focus, the issue of whether people will like our teachings or not is irrelevant.

4.  Bible Teachers Are Not Psalm 1:1-3 People.

Psalm 1:1-3 says,

1  Blessed is the man
who walks not in the counsel of the wicked,
nor stands in the way of sinners,
nor sits in the seat of scoffers;
2  but his delight is in the law of the Lord,
and on his law he meditates day and night.
3  He is like a tree
planted by streams of water
that yields its fruit in its season,
and its leaf does not wither.
In all that he does, he prospers.

Are you filing your mind with the Word of God each and every day (John 8:31-32)?  Are you faithfully opening the Scriptures and seeking to understand them to teach them faithfully to the people of God as Ezra did (Nehemiah 8:8)?  Do you spend time reading and meditating on the Word of God so that you can teach the people of God the truths of Scripture knowing that James 3:1-2 is for us?  All disciples of Jesus should abide in His teachings but the faithful Bible expositor should spend hours working through the text of Scripture as they seek to understand it and apply it to their life and the lives of their hearers.

5.  We Have Lost Our Sense of 2 Timothy 4:2-3.

Our passion before God should be to first exalt Him and then to prepare God’s people for service (Ephesians 4:11-16) and to protect them from theological errors (Acts 20:28).  1 Timothy 4:16 applies to us as it says, “Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.” As we abide in the Word of God, we can be sure that God will guard our hearts from sin (Psalm 119:11) and the Word of God will enable us to faithfully proclaim His truths to the people of God.  In this way, we are faithful to protect people from the errors of 2 Timothy 4:3.  Do you desire this Bible teacher?  Do you desire to protect the flock of God from error?  I appeal to you to preach the Word of God verse by verse and you’ll be amazed at how much doctrine you will have to teach and the error in our thinking is that people will not love theology.  They will.  It feeds the soul (Matthew 4:4).

Conclusion

Expository preaching is not popular.  Some churches do proclaim the Word of God verse by verse but they lack unction from heaven.  We don’t need dry and stale preaching.  We need anointed expository preaching that exalts Jesus Christ above all else.  I don’t want a dry lecture.  I want to hear from a passionate man of God what the Lord has said in His Word.  We need Spirit-filled, Spirit-led, prayed up men of God who will be faithful in example and speech in the proclamation of the Word of God.

One of the needs of this hour is for the Church to think biblically about social issues.  The duty of the Bible teacher is to not only teach verse by verse through the Word of God teaching people the doctrines of the faith and how to properly study the Bible but also to teach faithfully what the Bible says concerning cultural issues including homosexuality.  Few disciples seem to know what the Bible says about the sin.  It would seem ironic that one sin should be lifted above others when the Bible merely condemns the sin of homosexuality along with other sins (see Galatians 5:19-21 or 1 Timothy 1:8-11).  Homosexuality was rampant in the Roman culture in which the Apostles and the early Church operated.  Several emperors from the Roman Empire were homosexuals.  Yet the New Testament doesn’t spend a lot of time dealing with the sin.  It merely says that it is a sin and then moves on to more pressing issues such as the glory of Christ.  The spirit of the New Testament seems to be that homosexuality is a sin along with other sins and should be avoided as we avoid other sins as well (1 John 3:6-10).  Our passion is holiness (1 Peter 1:15-16) and the Holy Spirit is in the work of helping us to be holy (Galatians 5:16-17; Hebrews 10:10, 14).  Romans 6 is clear that the disciple of Jesus has been baptized into Christ (vv. 3-4) and now we are to walk in the newness of life that we have received by God’s grace.  We are to be dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus (v. 11).  We are to present our members to God as holy instruments (vv. 12-14).  We have been set free from sin (v. 16) and to be slaves of God (v. 22) for the wages of sin is death but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (v. 23).

It is then the obligation of the faithful Bible teacher and the disciple of Jesus to know what the Bible says about sins such as adultery, lying, and even homosexuality.  We are to think biblically about all things since the Bible alone speaks the truth of God (John 17:17).  The Bible teacher cries with the psalmist, “My eyes shed streams of tears, because people do not keep your law” (Psalm 119:136).  Our passion for all of us, both Bible teacher and disciple of Jesus, is to be obedient to the Lord Jesus and obey His Word above all else (Acts 4:19-20).  We are to be abiding in the words of Christ (John 8:31-32) and find our delight in Him (John 15:1-9).  We are to mediate upon His Word (Psalm 1:1-3) and therein we will find peace (Philippians 4:8-9).  The Bible helps us to discern truth from error as we abide in it (Hebrews 5:14).  How wonderful is the Word of God!

I believe Dr. John MacArthur has a sermon we should all heed.  You can find the link to it here.  This sermon will challenge you to think biblically about all things but specifically in this sermon on the sin of homosexuality.  A dying world needs to hear the gospel and know that we stand upon the Word of God as our final authority and not the culture around us.

From this idea, I seem to myself to perceive the reason that God placed the condition of the covenant of grace, not in a perfect obedience to the law, as previously, but in faith in Christ. The minor depends on the declaration “the elder shall serve the younger,” and on the agreement of the type and antitype, which consists in this — that what is presignified by the type should correspond to the antitype. But, by the type of Esau and Jacob, is presignified, first, that the purpose of God is according to election; then, that this purpose stands, not of works, but of Him that calleth. The former, indeed, because one was loved and the other hated; one was preferred to and placed over the other, which is a sign of “the purpose according to election;” the latter, because Esau, the elder, was hated and made subject, and Jacob, the younger, was loved, and placed over him, which is a sign that this purpose stands, “not of works, but of Him that calleth;” that is, that God loves them, who seek righteousness, and salvation by faith in Christ, but hates them who seek the same by the works of the law. It follows that they are not embraced in that purpose, who are of the works of the law, but only they who are of the faith of Jesus Christ, and consequently that those of the Jews are rejected, who followed the righteousness of the law, and they are elected and loved, who sought participation in righteousness by faith in Christ. Therefore, so far from the truth is it that this doctrine of justification by faith is overthrown by the word of the covenant and the divine purpose, that, by this, alone, it is established.

At this point, I have also explained to many, how the Jews were signified by Esau, the elder, who were seeking, in their zeal for the law, justification and life by the law, and that, by Jacob, the younger, they were signified, who sought the same things by faith in Christ. It is not necessary to repeat these things here; the authority of the apostle is sufficient, who thus explains those types, and who, briefly, from the agreement of the type and antitype, or that which is signified by the type, deduces this argument. Esau, the elder, was condemned to be the servant of his brother, by God, and was hated by him; — But Esau, the elder, is the type of all those who seek justification and salvation by the works of the law; — Therefore, all they who seek salvation by the works of the law, are condemned to servitude, and are hated by God. Again; — Jacob, the younger, obtained dominion over his brother, and was loved by God; — Jacob, the younger, is the type of all those who, according to the grace of vocation, by faith seek justification. Therefore, they who, according to the grace of vocation, by faith seek justification, obtain dominion, and are loved by God. Both Majors are included in the declarations “The elder shall serve the younger” and “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated” The Minors are contained in these words, “that the purpose of God, according to election, might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth,” and depend on the authority of the apostle, who thus explains those types.

Hence it is apparent that the question referred not only to the rejection of some and the acceptance of others, but to the rejection or acceptance of those of certain characters, that is, those distinguished by certain qualities. Therefore the apostle, here, treats not of the decree or the divine purpose, by which some are elected and others are reprobated, considered absolutely in their own nature, whether pure or corrupt; but of a purpose such as includes that description of elect and reprobate, which is here clearly observed in that purpose by the apostle: in which consists, in fact, the controversy between Beza with his followers, who strenuously defend the former and yourself, who urge a purpose of salvation such as to embrace the characters of those, who are to be saved and those who are to be damned.

But they will say that it is indeed true that Ishmael and Esau, Isaac and Jacob are to be considered typically, that is, the former, in each case, representing the character of the children of the flesh, and of those who ale of the works of the law, and the latter, the children of the promise, and those who are of faith, but that they also, for themselves, belong, in the same manner, to those classes, which they typify, and this of the eternal purpose of God, by which He determined to make Isaac and Jacob children of the promise, and to bestow on them faith in Christ, but to leave Ishmael and Esau in the carnal nature, in which they were born.

They affirm that we must go further back and inquire why one is the child of the flesh, another of the promise, why one should believe in Christ, and another should not believe, but seek salvation of the works of the law. I answer — It can not be proved from this passage that they, who are types, pertain to the antitypes: and if it may, perhaps, be true that Ishmael and Esau belong to the children of the flesh, as thus described, yet that they are such, of any divine purpose, is not taught in this place. In this purpose, as we have explained it, something is determined concerning the children of the flesh and of the promise, but with the explanation which they prefer, something is determined concerning individuals, that these should be children of the flesh, those of the promise. They can not, therefore, be the same purposes, the subject of one being changed into the attribute of the other. Concerning the adequate subject, there is not, as yet, harmony even among the Coryphaei of that view. And since the question — “why do some believe and others not?” has the same change of subject and attribute, I affirm that it is not here discussed by the apostle, nor has it even the least connection with his design. They must therefore, consult other passages of Scripture and see whether they can, from them, obtain proof for that decree. It is sufficient for us that, here, the purpose is described, by which our justification and salvation through grace, may be self consistent, and by which we can be made more certain, in ourselves, concerning the same things. But this purpose is that which God determined, after the former condition added to the legal covenant had not been performed, and man had by the fall been made unable to perform it, to enter into a covenant of grace with us through Christ; and of grace to change the condition of the former covenant into faith in Christ, by which we, believing in Christ, might obtain the same thing as we should have previously obtained by plenary obedience to the law, rendered by ourselves. On this purpose, as it appears, depends the certainty of our salvation, and at the same time the assurance of it in ourselves. For we inter that assurance from this Enthymene, “I am a believer,” or “I believe in Christ; — therefore I shall be saved,” or “I am elect.” The strength of which depends on this proposition: “God has immutably determined from eternity to save those, who believe Christ;” in which words is contained the sum of that purpose.

If any one should inquire, “Why did God wish that Ishmael and Esau should be the types of the children of the flesh, but Isaac and Jacob the types of the children of the promise?” I answer — Because it was suitable for the sake of significancy, and of agreement between the type and the antitype; in relation to the former type that he who was born of the bond woman and of the flesh should be the type of the children of the flesh, but that he, who was born of the free woman, and of the promise, when the flesh had now become unfruitful, should be the type of the children of the promise; but in relation to the latter type, that he, who was born first, should prefigure the children of the flesh, and he, who was born last, the children of the promise. The reason will be manifest to those who consider the agreement of types and antitypes.

It may be asked further, “Why did God will that Ishmael should be born of the bond woman and of the flesh, and that Esau should be born first; but that Isaac should be born of the free woman, and of the promise, and Jacob last?” I reply that the same question would be asked, if Isaac and Jacob had been substituted for Ishmael and Esau. In this matter, the Divine freedom is complete, circumscribed by no necessity of the Divine attributes, or of His revealed will. This will be seen of the attributes of the divine nature and His own revealed will are subject to God, in the determination of that purpose, for which your opponents contend.

Ezekiel 18:20 says, “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.”

Ezekiel still pursues the sentiment which we have explained, namely, that God is a just judge and treats every one according to his conduct; as Paul says, As each has lived in the flesh, so God lays up a reward for him. (Romans 8:13.) But he more clearly refuted the proverb, that the sons should suffer for their fathers’ sins. He says, then, that each when he comes before God’s tribunal should be judged by his works. As far then as the general sentiment is concerned, it is in accordance with common sense that God should exact punishment of the wicked, and that they should receive the just reward of their works. But in the next clause, the question arises how the Spirit here pronounces that the son should not pay the penalty due to the father, when God so often declares that he visits the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation. (Exodus 20:5.) That sentiment often occurs: but there are two passages peculiarly remarkable, where it is annexed to the second precept of the law, (Deuteronomy 5:9,) and then in that remarkable vision which occurred to Moses, God pronounces the same thing as before, namely, that the iniquity of the fathers should fall upon the sons. (Exodus 34:7.) These passages seem opposed to each other, but it will be easy to remove the contradiction by beginning with the fall of Adam, since if we do not consider the whole race fallen in Adam, we can scarcely extricate ourselves from that difficulty which we often feel as causing pungent scruples. But the principle of one universal fall in Adam removes all doubts. For when we consider the perishing of the whole human race, it is said with truth that we perish through another’s fault: but it is added at the same time, that every one perishes through his own iniquity. If then we inquire into the cause of the curse which presses upon all the posterity of Adam, it may be said to be partly another’s and partly our own: another’s, through Adam’s declension from God, in whose person the whole human race was spoiled of righteousness and intelligence, and all parts of the soul utterly corrupted. So that every one is lost in himself, and if he wishes to contend with God, he must always acknowledge that the fountain of the curse flows from himself. For before the child was born into the world, it was corrupt, since its menial intelligence was buried in darkness, and its will was perverse and rebellious against God. As soon as infants are born they contract pollution from their father Adam: their reason is blinded, their appetites perverted, and their senses entirely vitiated. This does not immediately show itself in the young child, but before God, who discerns things more acutely than we do, the corruption of our whole nature is rightly treated as sin. There is no one who during the course of his life does not perceive himself liable to punishment through his own works; but original sin is sufficient for the condemnation of all men. When men grow up they acquire for themselves the new curse of what is called actual sin: so that he who is pure with reference to ordinary observation, is guilty before God: hence Scripture pronounces us all naturally children of wrath: these are Paul’s words in the second chapter of the epistle to the Ephesians, (Ephesians 2:3.) If then we are children of wrath, it follows that we are polluted from our birth: this provokes God’s anger and renders him hostile to us: in this sense David confesses himself conceived in sin. (Psalm 51:5.) He does not here accuse either his father or his mother so as to extenuate his own wickedness; but, when he abhors the greatness of his sin in provoking the wrath of God, he is brought back to his infancy, and acknowledges that he was even then guilty before God. We see then that David, being reminded of a single sin, acknowledges himself a sinner before he was born; and since we are all under the curse, it follows that we are all worthy of death. Thus, the son properly speaking shall not die through the iniquity of his father, but is considered guilty before God through his own fault.

Now let us proceed further. When God pronounces that the iniquity of the father returns into the bosom of the son, we must remember that when God involves the son in the same death with the father, he does so principally because the son of the impious is destitute of his Spirit: whence it happens that he remains in the death in which he was born. For if we do not consider any other punishments than those which are openly inflicted, a new scruple will again arise from which we cannot free ourselves, since this inquiry will always recur, how can the son perish by his own fault, if he can produce good fruit and so reconcile himself to God? But the first punishment with which God threatens the reprobate is that which I have mentioned, namely, that their offspring are destitute and deprived of spiritual gifts, so that they sink deeper and deeper into destruction: for there are two kinds of punishment, the one outward and the other inward, as we express it. God punishes the transgressors of his law by either the sword, or by famine, or by pestilence, as he everywhere denounces: he is also armed with other means of slaughter for executing his wrath, and all these punishments are outward and openly apparent. But there is another sort inward and hidden, when God takes away the spirit of rectitude from the reprobate, when he gives them up to a reprobate mind, subjects them to foul desires, and deprives them of all his gifts hence God is said to cause the fathers’ iniquity to recoil upon the children not only when he outwardly punishes the little ones, but because he devotes a cursed offspring to eternal destruction, through being destitute of all the gifts of the Spirit,. Now we know that God is the fountain of life, (Psalm 36:9,) whence it follows that all who are separated from him are dead. Now therefore it is evident how God throws the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, since when he devotes both father and son to eternal destruction, he deprives them of all his gifts, blinds their minds, and enslaves all their appetites to the devil. Although we may, in one word, embrace the whole matter of the children suffering for the fathers when he leaves them to simple nature, as the phrase is, since in this way he drowns them in death and destruction. But outward punishments also follow afterwards, as when God sends lightning upon Sodom many young children perished, and all were absorbed with their parents. (Genesis 19:24.) If any one asks by what right they perished, first they were sons of Adam and so were accursed, and then God wished to punish the Sodomites through their offspring, and he could do so deservedly. Concerning the young who thus perished with their fathers, it is said, happy is he who dashes thy young ones against the stones or the pavement. (Psalm 137:9.) At first sight, indeed, that atrocity seems intolerable that a child whose age and judgment is thus tender should be so cruelly slain: but as we have already said, all are naturally children of wrath. (Ephesians 2:2.) No wonder, therefore, that God withdraws his favor from the offspring of the reprobate, even if he executes these outward judgments. But how will this now be suitable, shall not the son bear the iniquity of the father? for Ezekiel here speaks of adults, for he means that the son shall not bear his father’s iniquity, since he shall receive the reward due to himself and sustain his own burden. Should any one wish to strive with God, he can be refuted in a single word: for who can boast himself innocent? Since therefore all are guilty through their own fault, it follows that the son does not bear his father’s iniquity, since he has to bear his own at the same time. Now that question is solved.

He now adds, the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the impiety of the impious shall be upon him. We said that this was the legal sentence: if God used the same language everywhere, no hope of safety would be left to us. For who would be found just if his life were judged strictly by the law? But it has already been said, speaking accurately, that God rewards those worshipers who observe his law, and punish those who transgress it. But since we are all far from perfect obedience, Christ is offered to us, from whom we may partake of righteousness, and in this way be justified by faith. Meanwhile it is true, according to the rule of the law, that the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, since God will not disappoint any, but will really perform what he has promised. But he promises a reward to all who observe his law. If any one object that this doctrine is useless and superfluous, we have an answer at hand, that it is in many ways useful, since, first of all, we acknowledge that God, although he owes us nothing, yet willingly binds himself to be reconciled to us; and thus his surprising liberality appears. Then we again collect, that by transgression we cannot profit or obtain any advantage when God offers a reward to all who observe his law. For what can we demand more equitable than that God should of his own accord be our debtor? and should reward us while he holds us bound to himself, and completely subject to him with all our works? And that pattern of Christ must be considered, When you have done all that was commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants. (Luke 17:10.) Why so? for we return nothing but what God has justly required of us. We gather, then, from this sentence, that we cannot expostulate with God, or complain of anything while the fault of our own condemnation resides in us for not keeping the law. Thirdly, we acknowledge another instance of God’s mercy in his clothing us in the righteousness of his Son, when he sees us in want of a righteousness of our own, and altogether destitute of everything good. Fourthly, we said that they are esteemed just who do not satisfy the law, since God does not impute their sins to them. Hence the righteousness of the law is not without fruit among the faithful; since on account of that blessedness which is described in Psalm 32:2, their works are taken into account and remunerated by God. So the righteousness of the righteous is upon him, just as the impiety of the impious is upon him, and it shall recoil upon his own head.

The children of the flesh are said, in this place, by the apostle, to be those who, by the works of the law, follow after righteousness and salvation. In this way, also, the consequent is sustained, being deduced from his doctrine concerning justification and salvation by faith in Christ. For it does not follow from this, that some of the Jews are rejected, unless by this distinguishing mark, namely, that they do not believe in Christ, but follow after the righteousness of the law. But the children of the promise are they, who seek righteousness and salvation by faith in Christ. This description of the children of the flesh and of the promise is so plain from the Scriptures, as not to need further argument. But the foundations of the proofs can be sought from the 4th, 9th, and 10th chapters of this epistle, and from the 3d and 4th chapters of the Epistle to the Galatians, as you have observed, and as I presented to my congregation, when I treated this subject.

From this discussion of the question it is evident, that it must be proposed in the second manner, with reference to the character of those rejected. We must now, indeed, consider the proof of that reason, which is assumed in the refutatory syllogism. For the consequence, deduced from it, is, in itself, clear and manifest. The apostle, then, proves that the word of the promise and covenant comprehends only the children of the promise, to the exclusion of the children of the flesh, and this by a two-fold type, one, taken from the family of Abraham, and the other from the family of Isaac. But two things are to be presupposed to the argument in both cases, both supported by the authority of the apostle, which ought to be held sacred by us. One, that Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob, are to be considered, not in themselves, but as types in those passages, which he presents. The other, that they are types of the children of the flesh and of the promise. The apostle proves neither, but assumes both and correctly. For it is most certain, from an inspection of the passages themselves, that this is so, for the apostle says, in Gal. iv, 24, “which things are an allegory,” and that the first sense, which God wished to give in those passages, is not literal, but allegorical. These things being presupposed, the force of the apostle’s argument consists in the agreement between the types and antitypes, which is as great as is the immutability and constancy of Him, who willed that these should be the types, corresponding to those antitypes. But it is to be observed that this agreement consists, not in their exact resemblance, but in their mutual connection and relation, the proper difference of type and antitype being preserved. I give this admonition that no one may think it necessary that he, who represents the children of the flesh, should himself be a child of the flesh, by the mode of the same definition. Now, to the particular cases. The proof from the first type depends on these two passages of Scripture (verses 7 and 9). “In Isaac shall thy seed be called,” and “at this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.” From which this argument is deduced, that agreement being presupposed; — In the seed, reference is made to Isaac; — But Isaac is the type of all the children of the promise; — Therefore, all the children of the promise are regarded in the seed. The Major is embraced in these words — “In Isaac shall thy seed be called.” The Minor, partly in these words – - “For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son;” partly in that agreement, of which mention was made.

But not only may we infer that all the children of the promise are reckoned in the seed, but that they alone are so reckoned. For those things, which are spoken of Isaac, are effectual to the exclusion of Ishmael, as the apostle signifies by the adversative particle “but” (7th verse), joined to the member of the sentence, opposed to the former negations, “but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called;” from which this conclusion is deduced; — Ishmael is not reckoned in the seed; — But Ishmael is the type of all the children of the flesh; — Therefore, none of the children of the flesh are reckoned in the seed. I know that in that figure, the conclusion is deduced only in a particular case, but the strength of the conclusion depends on the agreement, which subsists between the type, and that which is adumbrated by the type, in accordance with the immutable will of God. We know, also, that a conclusion may be drawn from the necessity of the subject, which can not be drawn from the particular form of the syllogism. Here we might say many things concerning the consequent mode of the mutual relation of Ishmael and the children of the flesh, and of Isaac, and the children of the promise; and how this was aptly signified by the birth of each, as the apostle declares was prefigured by that type. But I think that it is unnecessary to repeat those things, because they serve only to explain that sentiment, not to confirm it, as it is sufficiently proved to us by the authority of the apostle, namely, that the children of the flesh are signified by Ishmael, but the children of the promise, by Isaac.

Now another type is introduced, taken from the family of Isaac, in which the apostle affirms that the same thing is declared, as in the former, when he says (10th verse) “and not only this, but when Rebecca, also, &c.” That passage, therefore, adduced for the same purpose, is to be explained in accordance with the same design. But three things are to be considered here, in order. First — some circumstances, peculiar to this type, which add much weight to the proof of the apostle, and by which the apostle anticipates whatever he foresees can be brought forward by the Jews against the former type in opposition to his cause. Secondly — the word of God, which was addressed to Rebecca, which the typical argument embraces, is illustrated from another passage, taken from one of the prophets. Thirdly — the explanation which Paul, the divinely inspired, gives of the object and scope of that divine declaration.

As to the first, the Jews could object against the former type, that it is not wonderful that Ishmael, being rejected, Isaac should be adopted as a son by God, both because Ishmael was the child of a bond woman, and Isaac of the free woman, and because, before God announced the word of promise to Sarah, Ishmael was born and could have perpetrated those things which made him unworthy of that honour and felicity. The apostle meets these objections, and replies to the first, that, in the case of Esau and Jacob, the circumstances were entirely different, as they had both the same father and the same mother, and were born at the same birth. In reply to the second objection, he refers to the words, addressed to Rebecca, when she was yet carrying the twins in her womb, and therefore, the children were not yet born, and could not have done any good or evil, by which one deserved to be rejected and the other adopted. By these circumstances, the Jews were deprived of any objection, which they could make against the previous type, namely, that they, being born of the free woman, and seeking their salvation from the law, could, in no way whatever, be reckoned among those who were rejected. Those words, addressed to Rebecca, are to be considered, which were briefly these: “The elder shall serve the younger.” They are explained by a passage from Mal. i, 2, 3. “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated,” and this is said, that it may be evident that the servitude of the elder is united with the divine hatred, and the dominion of the younger with the divine love.

Here we must repeat what was said before, as a general remark, that Esau and Jacob are to be considered, not in themselves, but as types, and so that which is attributed to them, is to be accommodated to the antitypes, or rather to the things signified. Hence, also, the antitypes are to be considered, before a conclusion, similar to the former, can be deduced from them, to the refutation of the sentiment of the Jews and to the confirmation of that of the apostle. But what those antitypes are, may be gathered from the end or design which the apostle has added, in these words: “that the purpose of God, according to election, might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth.” That is, God, in those words, “the elder shall serve the younger,” addressed to Rebecca, “the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil,” designed to indicate nothing else than that He had formed, in His own mind, from eternity, a purpose to communicate righteousness and salvation, not one which should embrace all the posterity of Abraham universally, but which should be according to election, by which He would distinguish between these and those, not considered simply in their own nature, as pure or corrupt, but in respect to the condition, by which righteousness and salvation were to be applied, as the apostle shows in the following words — that this purpose, according to election, might stand not of works, but of him who calleth, in which words is contained a description of the antitypes, which had before been given in the phrases “children of the flesh” and “children of the promise.” Here it is more clear, for the children of the flesh and those of the promise are, such, by their own peculiarity, defined by the apostle, in this passage, since the former are “of works,” the latter of faith, by which obedience is rendered unto God, who “calleth.” Therefore, the apostle says that the purpose of God, which is according to election, has reference to those who have faith in God who calleth, and who trust in Christ, not to those who seek salvation by the works of the law. The conclusion can be drawn from these things against the objection of the Jews in favour of the doctrine of the apostle concerning justification by faith, in this way: “If the word of God and His purpose is according to election, by which the former is rejected, and the latter accepted, then it follows, even if some of the Jews are rejected, yet that word and purpose is not in vain; rather indeed, if that purpose, which is according to election, should be said to embrace all without any election, it would be in vain; — But this word and purpose is according to election; Therefore, even if some of the Jews should be rejected, yet that word and purpose does not, on that account, fail; it is, indeed, rather confirmed from that fact, because it is its nature to exclude some, as it is according to election, by which one is rejected and another accepted.”

The Free Will Baptists have written into their articles of faith the following that affirms inerrancy (with my emphasis):

God used holy men to write the Scriptures. They are, in both the Old and New Testaments, the very words God intended us to have. They are, as given by God, without error and are our only rule of faith and practice. We profit from them by learning the truth about many things: they also speak to us about wrong doing; they even correct us and get us back on course as well as instructing us in right living.

The United Methodist Church (UMC) simply states that it believes the Bible to be the Word of God and is the source for our faith and practice.  The UMC is not congruent in its approach to the Bible.  Long have the UMC debated inerrancy and largely have denied inerrancy.

The Southern Methodist Church is one of the few Methodist movements that clearly affirms inerrancy.  The SMC’s website states this about the Scriptures:

We believe in the original manuscripts of the Bible as the inerrant Word of God, verbally inspired; by this we mean that inexplicable power which the divine Spirit put forth of old on the authors of Holy Scripture, in order to guide them even in the employment of the words they used, and to preserve them alike from all error and from all omission. We recognize the King James Version of the Bible as a trustworthy translation and we recommend that it be read from the pulpit. I Pet. 1:23, “Being born again . . . by the Word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.” Deut. 27:26; II Kings 17:13; Psm. 19:7; 33:4; 119:89; Isa. 8:20; Gal. 3:10; II Pet. 3:15,16; II Tim. 3:16; II Pet. 1:20, 21; Jn. 10:34, 35; Lk. 24:44; Mt. 5:17; I Cor. 14:21; James 4:5; I Jn. 3:24; I Cor. 2:13;14:37; Gal. 1:12; I Thes. 2:13; 4:2, 8; Rev. 21:5; 22:6,18,19.

I would take exception with adding the statement about the King James Version being the “trustworthy translation” that is recommended for the pulpit.  I believe that the KJV, while a good translation for its time, is far from the excellence of the New American Standard or the English Standard Version.  The NKJV, in my estimation, is better than the KJV.

I believe that the historic Arminian denominations such as the Wesleyan Church, the Church of the Nazarene, the Pentecostal fellowships, and the independent Arminian churches need to affirm inerrancy.  When we fail to affirm inerrancy we are opening the door for those who say that the Bible is only trustworthy in matters of faith and practice but not accurate in history or science.  When we fail to affirm inerrancy, we are also opening the door for postmodernism to creep into the church through Bible colleges that fail to teach the Bible as the inerrant Word of God.  We should hold our Bible teachers to inerrancy and call them to teach the Word of God faithfully (2 Timothy 4:2-5).  The duty of the Bible teacher is not to cast doubt upon the Word of God but to teach the Scriptures and to allow the Bible to unfold before the people of God (John 21:15-17; Acts 20:28).

If the Arminian movement is to see souls saved.  If we are to see revival come to the nations.  If we are to do anything that is of eternal value for the glory of God, we must embrace and preach the inerrancy of the Word of God.  The Bible is our sole authority for all things.  The Bible is the written Word of the living God (2 Timothy 3:16-17).  The Bible reveals the truth of God to a lost and dying world that needs the gospel.  Now is not the time to waffle on inerrancy.  Now is the time to proclaim the Bible as the inerrant and infallible Word of God.